The UK Planning System Needs Radical Reform…but it is not NIMBY to want a good night’s sleep

I’ve never liked NIMBYs.

Back in the 1980s when I chaired ALARM (All London Against the Roadbuilding Menace), the biggest initial problem was persuading residents not to take a NIMBY approach by trying to push the proposed road schemes into other people’s backyards.

In my experience, the wealthier the area, the more like it is to be NIMBY. I remember sitting in a meeting in the smart South London suburb of Dulwich where many of the residents wanted to actively campaign for the option to build what would effectively have been a major new road through the estates of Brixton and Peckham rather than have the South Circular widened outside their homes. ALARM would not have successfully seen of the proposed ￡12 billion roads programme if it hadn’t become a united campaign.

And NIMBY concerns have contributed to the underinvestment in transport, energy and housing in recent decades,?so brilliantly set out by Ben Southwood, Samuel Hughes and Sam Bowman in their 21,000-word essay (https://ukfoundations.co/?utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email) on our infrastructure failings (and how to fix them) which the Sunday Times has called ‘the talk of Westminster’ (29/9/24).

Part of the reason identified for the UK’s inability to build infrastructure as quickly and as cheaply as just about any other country is our stifling planning system – over-complex and over-long.?The Elizabeth Line was first proposed in the Central London Rail Study, published in 1989. It cost ￡1.4 billion per mile. In contrast, Madrid in just eight years built a whole 81-mile subway network at just ￡68 million per mile (ref?https://www.britainremade.co.uk)

But for NIMBYs – particularly up-market NIMBYs – the planning system has been a god-send.?These are the people who have the time and the resources to mount a drawn-out campaign against a planning application until the future of every newt and every tadpole has been resolved

Incidentally, I would argue that the current planning system is not in the interest of most residents. Local communities?do?want to be consulted properly. Just look at the mess around low traffic neighbourhoods when people are not. But they want the consultation to be simple, honest, and over pretty quickly in order that they can get on with the rest of their lives.

The long, drawn-out consultation Heathrow was forced to conduct over a third runway was not in the interest of local residents who didn’t have the time to read hundreds of documents. Those documents were the overweight children of a bloated planning system which largely benefits lawyers, wealthy NGOs….and NIMBYs.

The planning system needs radical reform but I would urge some caution.?In our frustration with it, we need to remember that there are legitimate objections to projects which must be listened to. Commonsense planning is not a green light to approve every piece of infrastructure. Anything deemed to cause unacceptable environmental or social damage would need to be refined or refused. It is not a licence that would allow Ed Miliband to build wind turbines wherever his green energy next takes him. Each wind farm would need to be decided on its merits. A commonsense approach would distinguish between the real concerns of residents (probably around noise in the case of wind turbines) and the NIMBY desire to put it elsewhere.

The smart young journalist Tom Harwood tweeted (28/9/24): “I hate to say it but borough councils have too much power. The answer to London’s nightlife crisis likely lies in finding a different model. Licensing hours/conditions being controlled by cllrs in hock to people who live near to but do not use Zone 1 hospitality is a disaster”.

Tom is of an age when doubtless he wants to party in Soho (jealousy gets me nowhere!) and a lot of the bars shut at midnight. But he is also concerned that London’s night time economy is losing out. A recent survey showed that even on Friday and Saturday nights, less than a quarter of London’s venues open past midnight. In Edinburgh, on the other hand, 44 per cent of venues close after midnight at the weekends, with more than 8 per cent open post-2am. London’s night life closed down earlier than in UK’s 12 other largest cities.

I’ve interviewed the Soho Society. They love Soho but have legitimate concerns – often around loud music – about their inability to get a good night’s sleep. They would be the big losers from Tom’s suggestion that licencing hours are not controlled locally.

When Heathrow residents complain about too many night flights I don’t believe they are being NIMBY. They just don’t want to be woken up at 4.30 in the morning.

Liz Truss was probably right to talk about ‘an anti-growth coalition’. The planning system was its bible, written by its adherents. The bible needs to be revised, its myriad of restrictive rules and regulations removed. But let’s remember, in doing so, it is not NIMBY to want a good night’s sleep.